Most precious piece in library

[Veva]

Hi,
I was just wondering what is the most precious book in your private library. For me it is English translation of Brothers Karamazov from 1970..:p

[Mr Endon]

I'd have to say Beckett's Letters (1929-1940). Just released (2009), but what a treasure! Probably the most expensive book in my library, too.

[oopsycandy]

I have a rather large church bible that was published in 1812. It was given to someone during a garage clearance to go to the tip but they kept it for me!!

The pages are not in fantastic condition but i love the fact that it was rescued and probably has an interesting past x

[LitNetIsGreat]

Oh er, between Oscar Wilde's complete letters (now out of print, which is why I had to pay £55 for an ex-library copy, good condition though), Shakespeare's complete works, for sheer kick of knowing that I have so much power in one book - worn out copy though, pages falling out in places, Milton's Paradise Lost, which follows me around like a puppy, child's picture book copy of Happy Prince and Other Tales which I picked up on a trip to Ireland, Major Works of Philip Sidney because it is what I'm going to read in the summer, Collected poems of Wordsworth, old Penguin copy always hides under the bed, and probably my old Penguin copy of Dorian Gray because that's the same book I had when I first read it and even though it is scraggy, it's still cool. :cool:

[stlukesguild]

Hmmm... intriguing question. In spite of the scale of my library (some 3000 books) I have never really gone in for rare books. Certainly I have any number of books which are long out of print and would be difficult to replace, and I have a good number of books (especially art books) that are worth $75, $100, or more. But most "precious". As a sworn Borgesian I could not be without Borges' Dream Tigers which is not easy to find... while Labyrinths must be credited with first introducing me to the world of Borges... and eventually the whole of Post-Modern literature. On the other hand Baudelaire's Fleurs du Mal (translated by Richard Howard) and the thick catalog Max Beckmann:Retrospective were almost like Bibles for me for years: the one truly led me to a love of poetry and the other opened my eyes to modern art. I still pick them up on a regular basis today.

[Eryk]

Original four volume English edition of Sholokhov's And Quiet Flows the Don, published in the 1930s. It isn't really valuable in terms of money, they just mean a lot to me, aesthetically: the dimensions of the books, type size and font, cover art... and of course the writing :)

[mortalterror]

I'm a bit like StLukes in that my most precious volumes are not numbered among my most expensive collections. If pressed, I would have to admit that an out of print translation of Racine's plays is perhaps my most prized possession. Though the price tag was only about two bucks, I spent a few years prowling through used book stores looking for it. He's so rarely read in the United States that his plays have taken on a personal almost exclusive tinge for me, as though they were a form of private intellectual property... a secret garden if you will.

After that, I'm most proud of my Eight Dramas of Calderon in the Fitzgerald translation, and my favorite translation of Dante's Inferno. Beyond that, I've bought multiple copies of Aristophanes comedies, The Day of the Locust, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, Catch-22, and Orwell's Down and Out in Paris and London.

[Desolation]

I don't have any rare books, but, my most cherished book is the tattered, dog-eared, torn, and coffee-stained copy of 'On the Road' that I plucked from my dad's library. That book changed my literary life. My copy of 'Leaves of Grass' by Walt Whitman also holds plenty of sentimental value.

[dnceive]

This will serve as introduction to this forum. I think at the moment my most prized book is a 1st UK ed. of Thomas Pynchon's Gravity's Rainbow (Jonathan Cape, 1973).

[stlukesguild]

Mortal... who's the translator or the publisher of your Calderon? The same for your Racine. Both are certainly almost invisible in the English speaking world.

[JBI]

My Italian copy of Leopardi's Canti, or perhaps my 5 Tomb edition of the Pentatuch (in Hebrew) with extensive scholarship and commentary (each book is about 700 or so pages long, and it is the ultimate reference book). Though, in terms of reading, I generally head back to my copy of Eliot's Four Quartets (individually published, I have a collected poems too), which I have read at least 300 times this past year.

[JBI]

Mortal... who's the translator or the publisher of your Calderon? The same for your Racine. Both are certainly almost invisible in the English speaking world.

There is a translation of three of Racine's plays done by George Dillon which is still widely available.

[stlukesguild]

JBI... I actually have a two volume Complete Plays of Racine translated by Samuel Solomon and published by Modern Library as well as the Robert Lowell "translations" and those of Richard Wilbur. Just wondering what version Mortal was reading considering the value he placed upon the works.

[mortalterror]

Mortal... who's the translator or the publisher of your Calderon? The same for your Racine. Both are certainly almost invisible in the English speaking world.

This was my introduction to Racine. http://www.amazon.com/Iphigenia-Phaedra-Athaliah-Penguin-Classics/dp/0140441220/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1244013412&sr=1-1 I was captivated from the first page. The turmoil of Agamemnon's soul, the complexity of character, the brilliance of the verse. It had me rooted to the spot. I devoured this book. It is, of course, the lovely Penguin books translation of Iphigenia, Phaedra, and Athaliah by John Cairncross. This volume is readily available in most book shops.

If you've read Madame Bovary, then you know that Athalie is mentioned therein to be the greatest French tragedy. I believe Proust drops Racine's name in Within a Budding Grove, although there he seems to prefer Phèdre.

I bought Three Plays of Racine translated by George Dillon next. He must be commended for the care and beauty which he lavished on his creations. Between the two translators John Cairncross is only slightly to be preferred. That volume comprises Phaedra, Britannicus, and Andromache. You see the overlap with my previous edition? By buying that I was only up two plays. Though at the time it was a worthwhile purchase. I'm still just purchasing Racine piecemeal, like a ransomed child, little parts come one at a time in the mail.

The volume which I originally spoke of is John Cairncross' complementary volume, now out of print, Andromache and Other Plays. Here he translates Andromache, Britannicus, and Berenice. It was the devil tracking this book down. I could not stomach the thought of settling for the Modern Library's execrable Solomon text. The whole thing was in prose, and blandly done at that. It had none of the punch or fire of the original. The words were dead on the paper. No. That was out of the question; so my search wore on, and you know what? It was worth it. The addition of Berenice was enough by itself to reward my endeavor. I'd tried my hand at a translation of the play once myself, and how that wore on!

Who can draw women as well as Racine? Who can surpass him for rapturous passion and bittersweet love? Only Petrarch. Andromache was a charm, and I loved the way he finally gave Orestes sidekick Pylades some lines. The man is as silent as a ghost in the old Greek plays.

Richard Wilbur did some translations but I wasn't all that into him.

As far as Calderon goes, I believe this is the book I own. http://www.amazon.com/Eight-Dramas-Calderon/dp/0548221693/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1244013232&sr=1-1#reader What you won't see from the pictures on Amazon is how perfectly balanced this book is, how it fits snugly in the palm of your hand, how the pages turn with a springy laziness, or the creamy white of the paper under yellow lamplight. It even smells new. It retains this kind of sheen to it after years, which is unusual; because it's not glossy, and on the front is a detail of Velazquez's Surrender of Breda.

The text itself is by the Victorian poet Edward FitzGerald known for his magnificent Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam. I was first introduced to his work in the Harvard Classics collection Continental Drama, where they reproduce his translation of Life is a Dream. However, FitzGerald had originally morphed that title into "Such Stuff as Dreams are Made Of" à la Shakespearean allusion as Moncrieff would do for Proust's book years later. In my paperback copy that change is preserved. It's a charming and harmless anachronism that lends the book a grace which the text as a whole deserves.

Highlights include The Painter of His Own Dishonor. Italians write of love. The English are dutiful. But no one can surpass a Spaniard in complexity, in truthfulness, insight, and honest pathos when it comes to the subject of honor. When the French try it almost seems a joke, but here it is so earnest. One never doubts the authors sincerity. Gil Perez, The Gallician could be a modern action movie. It's explosive and full of energy, filled with dynamic, courageous individuals reminiscent of Cyrano de Bergerac. It grabs you by the throat at the beginning and doesn't let go. But the real reason to buy this volume is the last play, Life is a Dream. It is a perfect philosophical poem, a gem that sparkles whichever way it's turned. The trapped prince is worthy of Hamlet in his angst, and moral uncertainty. Truly, this is one of the ten best plays of the last thousand years.

[Tsuyoiko]

I find it almost impossible to part with any book I've enjoyed; even returning library books is sometimes difficult for me! I have some nice books in my collection: a nineteenth century illustrated Don Quixote, with an inscription dated 1885 in beautiful copperplate writing; several classics from the Folio Society, which my dad adds to at Christmasses and birthdays; a signed copy of Golden Apples of the Sun by Ray Bradbury; and my Christening Bible, which has colour plates protected by tissue paper :D.

Although they have no aesthetic or monetary value, there are other books I couldn't part with because of their sentimental value: my full set of Arthur Mee's Children's Encyclopaedia, which were my dad's. We would spend hours poring over them when I was a kid, trying to spot the archaisms. I remember reading how one day men might land on the Moon :lol: ; my Good News Bible, which I was given at Sunday school. It still has markers in all the pages I wanted to remember as a kid. It was when I read that Bible cover to cover for a Sunday School project that I first started on my way to Atheism; all my academic books from University. I've reread some of the Philosophy ones, but although I haven't touched any of the Mathematics ones for well over ten years, they are my relics of a golden age :blush: ; my children's Bible that is the only gift I still have from my great grandmother. The cover shows god as a pair of hands cradling the Earth, and that's the god I believed in as a kid.

[Veva]

Oh yes,
I almost forgot about my own Slovak translation of Mrs. Dalloway I got from my grandmother. Though it is from the 80s, it has a sentimental meaning for me.:blush:

[stlukesguild]

I actually have the Fitzgerald/Calderon in a slim volume that also collects the Victorian poet's Omar Khayyam translations. Beyond this I have a few individual translations including two by Roy Campbell who is also known for his marvelous rendering of San Juan de la Cruz' poems.

I'll take your recommendation with regard to the Racine... considering that I have never been impressed by the Solomon translations (although I did admire those of Wilbur).

[mortalterror]

I'll take your recommendation with regard to the Racine... considering that I have never been impressed by the Solomon translations (although I did admire those of Wilbur).

I don't want to disparage or put down the work of Richard Wilbur. The man is a craftsman and knows how to translate French poetry. But I thought his efforts with respect to Moliere were more confident, more facile, more accurate, more true to his own conceptions of art. Not every work is equally successful. Wilbur has translated Phaedra, Andromache, and The Suitors for Racine, and I think what I found troublesome was his rendering of Racine's Alexanderine line into Heroic couplets. The thing jarred on the ear and came off too rhymie. That just doesn't work in English. Blank verse is a much better fit. I bought a copy of The Suitors and was like, "What the hell is this?" Admittedly, that's not one of Racine's better plays; so I'll give Wilbur the benefit of the doubt, as far as that goes.

[mono]

I began detailing some of my prized possessions on this thread (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41075) some months ago, and it has grown a bit from there, slowly and gradually.

[JBI]

I began detailing some of my prized possessions on this thread (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41075) some months ago, and it has grown a bit from there, slowly and gradually.

Damn, a first edition Fleur de Mal is nice - must be worth something significant too. How's the quality of it - is it pulp paper, or rag paper? Must be a rag by the date, but still, it must have been a fortune on first publication alone, let alone now.

[mono]

Damn, a first edition Fleur de Mal is nice - must be worth something significant too. How's the quality of it - is it pulp paper, or rag paper? Must be a rag by the date, but still, it must have been a fortune on first publication alone, let alone now.
Thanks, JBI. :) It cost a fair chunk of money, but I consider it worth every penny. I would call the quality of the copy good, but not quite excellent, as some of the ends have a few bends and tears, and the spine feels a bit loose; the text and pages, however, still appear clear, unwritten upon, and untorn. Considering the style of binding, someone rebound it at an estimated late 19th-century, likely in the 1890's, so I do not know how the original binding looked, but it is now made of brown-tan leather - a bit more high-maintenance than one made of paper or cloth, but a beautiful copy, nonetheless. :D

[JBI]

Yeah, rag paper doesn't age the same way pulp does - it doesn't even smell up usually. How wide are the margins - I imagine, quite wide right? From what I remember about French publishing back then, they used to put 2-3 inches on each side of the text.

[Kafka's Crow]

I have first editions of some of Samuel Beckett works, including the Trilogoy. My boy (11 years old) has the first edition copies of first five Harry Potter Books:

http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i72/Raz1/PICT0002-1.jpg

At one time I had the first editions of both Finnegans Wake and Ulysses (US edition, absolutely same as this one):

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_UmmPRkSlVcg/SHTi92K7WqI/AAAAAAAAAKA/_s5ClnxaTfo/s400/Marilyn%2BMonroe%2Breads%2BUlysses.jpg


But I lost them both somewhere. I think I can dig out the Wake if I looked hard enough but Ulysses has definitely gone.

[Mr Endon]

I have first editions of some of Samuel Beckett works, including the Trilogoy.

:thumbs_up now those are treasures. Lucky man!

[Scheherazade]

Why are the first editions so precious?

[Tupelo]

Hi,
I was just wondering what is the most precious book in your private library. For me it is English translation of Brothers Karamazov from 1970..:p


I have no first editions.

I have no rare copies.

All my books are precious because I have read and loved or hated them.

[JBI]

Why are the first editions so precious?

Because - when those were printed, the fate of the book was unknown - whether the book would flop or sell was a mystery, so the First Edition represents the first reaction, the significant reading of the text in its publication history.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I think I am with Tupelo here, I too have no rare or first editions, I don't think so anyway, and half of the books which are precious to me are cheap penguin editions.

There may be something connected to the aura of first editions, as in Walter Benjamin, but personally they don't bother me. True if it was an edition which the author himself handled or signed then that would mean something, but not just because of the number on the first page. Also the cost of them usually means that you can buy many books as opposed to just that one.

[mono]

Yeah, rag paper doesn't age the same way pulp does - it doesn't even smell up usually. How wide are the margins - I imagine, quite wide right? From what I remember about French publishing back then, they used to put 2-3 inches on each side of the text.
Sorry it took so long to reply; I logged off before I read this yesterday. Just eyeing it, yes, it does have relatively thick borders and margins, particularly the top and bottom ones. The sides appear some 2 inches (some 5 cm, for you metric system ones), thick considering the relatively smaller size of the book; the top and bottom margins, however, measure some 3 inches (about 7.5 cm) - all of this makes the book somewhat thicker than most contemporary copies (though it has small print), perhaps post-Depression, when many companies tried to utilize less paper to save money in printing.


Why are the first editions so precious?Because - when those were printed, the fate of the book was unknown - whether the book would flop or sell was a mystery, so the First Edition represents the first reaction, the significant reading of the text in its publication history.
Hmmm, good point - I have never considered that, but I definitely agree, JBI. Especially with the classics, many publishers have printed the same books over and over again, and I suppose I could ask a reciprocating similar question as to "why purchase a hardcover book instead of a paperback, when both contain the same story?" They prove more sturdy, less prone to tears and other damages, but otherwise have no other benefit - regardless, they tend to cost more and appear more rare. First editions almost always cost more and appear far more rare; often times, they have lost their sturdiness, depending on their age and care, but also usually contain the same story as modern printings (except in cases of Walt Whitman), whether unabridged hardcovers or paperbacks. Though they cost more, many treasure hardback books, just as some place a high value on first editions.
Last month, at the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, I saw original paintings and sculptures by many artists, including some very popular and highly-acclaimed ones, such as Pablo Picasso, Henri Matisse, Vincent van Gogh, Paul Gauguin, Edvard Munch, and Paul Cézanne; unfortunately, management closed the exhibition to Edgar Degas for repairs. Several individuals, undoubtedly both tourists and natives, as well as a few classes of students of all ages, attended the exhibitions to view the original paintings and sculptures by such revered artists; truly, anyone who has seen an original painting or sculpture, personally handled by the artist, up to several centuries or millenia ago, in a museum suddenly has a feeling of respect, reverence, and will sometimes gain a greater affinity for the artist.
Why do so many art-lovers go to museums to admire the original paintings and sculptures? Why not just purchase a framed print for one's home, costing about the same amount as admission to the museum? The same reason why book collectors, like me, put such a high value on first editions, signed, and collectible books. It seems much easier to admire a visual piece of art, such as a painting or sculpture, than it does literature, which requires reading, interpreting, and studying, sometimes researching into a writer. Even the uneducated eye can respect Jackson Pollock, who threw splatters of paint at canvas (worry not, visual art-lovers, I still like him, too), but it requires a unique devotion and a background study of French-Russian history to comprehend Tolstoy's War and Peace; mind you Pollock's painting, No. 5, still exists as the most expensive painting ever sold at $140 million. Why did David Geffen pay so much for something he could have purchased at almost any print shop? Because he respected Pollock in the same way as I respect authors, for whose books I have spent thousands of dollars on over time. (Also, as a side-note, many museums get government funding as national landmarks, while rare-book stores do not.)
One does not have to purchase a rare edition of a book to respect the writer, but it equals to both a hobby for me and a way to pay heed to a writer. Some first editions even got published by the authors themselves, such as Virginia Woolf, just as every stroke of paint in the originals by van Gogh I saw at the Glyptotek got there by his personal hand. Why go to museums? Why purchase an original painting for $140 million? Why visit writers' graves? Not only does a work of art deserve respect, but also the artist her/himself, the first publisher, the first printers that gave him/her a chance at distribution, the history of a book, people who cared enough for that book to take good care of it through years, decades, and centuries.

[stlukesguild]

Last month, at the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, I saw original paintings and sculptures by many artists, including some very popular and highly-acclaimed ones, such as Pablo Picasso, Henri Matisse, Vincent van Gogh, Paul Gauguin, Edvard Munch, and Paul Cézanne; unfortunately, management closed the exhibition to Edgar Degas for repairs. Several individuals, undoubtedly both tourists and natives, as well as a few classes of students of all ages, attended the exhibitions to view the original paintings and sculptures by such revered artists; truly, anyone who has seen an original painting or sculpture, personally handled by the artist, up to several centuries or millenia ago, in a museum suddenly has a feeling of respect, reverence, and will sometimes gain a greater affinity for the artist.
Why do so many art-lovers go to museums to admire the original paintings and sculptures? Why not just purchase a framed print for one's home, costing about the same amount as admission to the museum? The same reason why book collectors, like me, put such a high value on first editions, signed, and collectible books. It seems much easier to admire a visual piece of art, such as a painting or sculpture, than it does literature, which requires reading, interpreting, and studying, sometimes researching into a writer. Even the uneducated eye can respect Jackson Pollock, who threw splatters of paint at canvas (worry not, visual art-lovers, I still like him, too), but it requires a unique devotion and a background study of French-Russian history to comprehend Tolstoy's War and Peace; mind you Pollock's painting, No. 5, still exists as the most expensive painting ever sold at $140 million. Why did David Geffen pay so much for something he could have purchased at almost any print shop? Because he respected Pollock in the same way as I respect authors, for whose books I have spent thousands of dollars on over time. (Also, as a side-note, many museums get government funding as national landmarks, while rare-book stores do not.)

The reason that a first folio by Shakespeare or a first edition of Ulysses is worth so much is largely because of the "aura" (to use the above-mentioned Walter Benjamen's term) of the cult-object. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the art. In many cases a modern edition of Shakespeare will be far more accurate, include extensive notes, and even images. The first-folio, however, holds worth as an object (not as literature) which is perhaps a close to Shakespeare's hand as is possible. For some this feeling of having something from a given time or place is the driving motive behind collecting the rare book (rather like those who would collect antiques, or civil war uniforms, etc...). For others owning such is a source of pride: it proves wealth and taste... it may even be seen as an investment. There are certainly a great many who revere Shakespeare who would love to own such an object as a first folio (for example), and as it exists in a severely limited quantity, the laws of supply and demand dictate that its monetary "worth" be quite high.

This is quite different from passion for an original work of art... or rather, I should say, this is not the sole reason for such. Walter Benjamen (with his Marxist/Socialist leanings) reveled in the mechanical reproduction (in his seminal essay, Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction) of art seeing it as a means of removing the cult status (and prohibitive price) of the art object thus making it universally available to one and all... as well as focusing the admiration of the audience purely upon the work of art's aesthetic merits.

Unfortunately, Benjamen underestimated the passion for the historical element of a work of art. We cannot help that our perceptions of a Roman work of architecture or a medieval sculpture are colored by our conceptions of Rome or the middle-ages and a certain feeling of awe... and perhaps a melancholy in response to our recognitions of the passing of time and mortality. At the same time, Benjamen overestimated (at least for the time being) the ability of mechanical processes to accurately "reproduce" the work of art. Certainly today's digital recording technology is fabulous... but how many who have attended a live performance of a major symphony orchestra or an opera truly believe that it accurately "reproduces" the original work to such an extent that live performances are no longer needed? The visual arts are even further from such "reproduction".

A photograph of a painting... no matter how well made and how well printed... is in no way a "reproduction" of anything other than the original photograph. A painting has a definite size or scale which is an essential element of its expression. Looking at the 3x5" reproduction of Picasso's Les Demoiselles d'Avignon is in no way akin to standing before the real painting. The colors are not the same, the work does not have the same physical relationship to the viewer, and there is little of the physicality of the painting as an object. As a painter myself, I am acutely aware of the fact that paintings are at once image and object. A photograph captures the image with a certain degree of accuracy (ignoring issues of color and scale) but very little of the painting as an object. By this I mean that one can see very little from a photographic reproduction of the subtle layering of paint and pigment, the various drips, and swirls, and translucent glazes that make up the artist's touch. Matisse in reproduction often appears flat... in reality his surfaces are rich and sensuous. In reproduction Bonnard did little for me. When first I came upon his work in real life I was completely mesmerized... enchanted... converted in an instance. Jackson Pollack's paintings in real life exude an open, airiness... an elegance... and a rhythmic structure which are next to impossible to see when an 21x9 foot canvas has been reduced to the size of a postcard in reproduction. Original works of art certainly hold the same cult status or "aura" as the "first folio" or Shakespeare or the first edition of Ulysses and this makes up a large part of their "value" (in monetary terms)... but it cannot be ignored that the reproduction of the work of visual art is in most instances a very weak, weak substitute for the original.

[Psynema]

Notes From Underground, though I'm not that well read, so still more books to go.

If you had to pick only one book to read in your life, NFU would be it by a landslide. Nothing is that original IMO...yet, hopefully I'm proven wrong.

[stlukesguild]

It seems much easier to admire a visual piece of art, such as a painting or sculpture, than it does literature, which requires reading, interpreting, and studying, sometimes researching into a writer. Even the uneducated eye can respect Jackson Pollock, who threw splatters of paint at canvas (worry not, visual art-lovers, I still like him, too), but it requires a unique devotion and a background study of French-Russian history to comprehend Tolstoy's War and Peace...

Actually, I see very little difference. The average, untutored reader with very little background can read and appreciate (or not) War and Peace as an big adventure tale... but certainly one gains far more from a more informed reading. The same holds true of Jackson Pollack... or even an old master like Michelangelo. A viewer can appreciate the composition or the color harmonies or even (in the case of Michelangelo) the skill in rendering the human form... but far more is gained when these works are approached with a more "educated" eye. Pollack gains much when seen in light of the late paintings of Monet, the automatism of Surrealism, the gestural Zen painting of Japanese and Chinese art, etc... Michelangelo gains much when seen in comparison to his predecessors (Massaccio, Fra Angelico, Giotto, Donatello, and classical Roman sculpture)... when seen in light of the iconography (Christian and classical)... when judged with regard to the work of those who followed and were influenced by him.

...mind you Pollock's painting, No. 5, still exists as the most expensive painting ever sold at $140 million. Why did David Geffen pay so much for something he could have purchased at almost any print shop? Because he respected Pollock in the same way as I respect authors...

Actually... my guess is that David Geffen's intentions have more to do with his own inflated ego and need to own the "most-expensive painting". No. 5 is in no way one of Pollack's very best... and DeKooning's Woman III (which he also owns) is far from being one of the best of that artist's work. At least when the Lauders bought Gustav Klimt's Adele Bloch-Bauer for $135 Million they were getting a true iconic work.

[higley]

I have my father's old fairy tale book from the sixties, and it has some of the rarer tales you don't often find in later compilations (generally because they're violent.) I also have a hundred year old volume of Shakespeare my grandmother gave me as a birthday present.

[grace86]

My treasures are my rare books: a hard to find edition of Mary Webb's Armour Wherein He Trusted, and a book I found, with gold design of Plato's Republic.

Several other books that are my prized: my old tattered and beat up copies of Don Quixote, Anna Karenin and Crime and Punishment. It took me the longest to read them, and they are cheap copies, and are only beat up because I managed to get through them and they are on the top of my list of favorites. I've bought new hard cover editions, but they remind me of my accomplishments!

[Hank Stamper]

dunno if anybody has already posted this, but a first edition of Ulysses was sold in London yesterday for £275,000 ($450,000)! crazy

[TurquoiseSunset]

I have 1904 editions of As You Like It and Love's Labour's Lost in green, soft leather (or at least what looks like it). And I have Part 1 of 2 of Shakespeare's Works in german, 1912.
I don't think they're worth anything, but they are the oldest books I own.

[librarius_qui]

Hi,
I was just wondering what is the most precious book in your private library. For me it is English translation of Brothers Karamazov from 1970..:p

Difficult to say ... Speciallists, perhaps, would consider the Collodi's Pinoculus (Latin version), I have on the upper shelf, that I haven't read yet.

To me, for the moment, I like to look at my Italian version of The Name of the Rose, a current version in Brasil of my day, that speciallists will give nothing for.~

[prendrelemick]

My oldest book is a copy of Xenophon's Cyropaedia dated 1788, unfortunately it's in Greek with a Latin translation.

My most precious book cost nothing, a book of poems given to me by Ted Hughes, with a little note from him written on the inside cover.

[JuniperWoolf]

This little cardboard book that I've had since I was born about a girl who looks like me getting ready for bed.

[free]

All the books I bought when I was abroad. They are a kind of souvenris, the more precious because they are books.

[Miss Floy]

My 1872 copy of The Pickwick Papers :) I love it so much, but I have to remember that it's old and can't go with me everywhere--sigh--such a tragedy.

[sandy14]

Alexander Trocchi's Collected Poem's - Man at Leisure (1st ed) which at the time was the only edition available, until they were reprinted recently (grrr!)
.
Then there's my collection of Merlin - a set of literary magazines edited by Trocchi in the 50's which included works by Beckett, Logue and so on. I painstakingly collected all seven issues - individually they cost less than Man at Leisure, but as a complete set cost far more than I dare admit to myself, or this forum.

When one gets locked into a serious literature collection, the tendency is to push it as far as one can.

[Poetaster]

My Library of America edition of Robert Frost, and my 1856 copy of Tennyson's In Memoriam are two books I am most proud of.

I was also given a 1950s copy of English essays by an old lecturer as a leaving present, and that has a lot of sentimental value for me although it is just a bundle of papers, and not a 'book' anymore.

[Eiseabhal]

Amongst several thousand books in the home there are a few worth some money but the ones I like best are the ones worth most to me.

[ennison]

I would not wish to part before death with a small number of books. My Grandmother's Gaelic Bible, my own Gaelic Bible even though pretty frayed. The Uttermost Part of The Earth. My collection of RC Hutchinson (Still one short) my collection of Hart Crane's poetry. Sinclair's Oranaich. The Records of the Men of LochBroom. The selected Poems of Elder Olson. My bilingual version of Pessoa. A few novels - all paperback so of little monetary value. Some of my books may be worth a bit. My tome on the principles of Dredging was dear so it would fetch a price but it is of little sentimental value. Gillies' Songs of Gaelic Scotland is though.

[Eiseabhal]

I have the Gillies book too but Sinclair's book although I'd like to acquire it I do not own.

[Pompey Bum]

I have the army issue pocket Bible that my father's father's father's father carried in the American Civil War. It includes his clumsy pencil-drawn copies of the alphabet as he taught himself to write.

[hannah_arendt]

I have Goethe`s works from 1900.

[Libro]

Whew - a toughie but I like it - precious are ALL the books I would say and at times (depending on mood or caprice) I would say that Emerson's Essays (I collect various volumes of this work) would accompany me to that proverbial desert island. I then might shift to natural history and I would say the Standard Natural History in six volumes is the outstanding set here. I volley with philosophy by stating the Jowett translations of Plato are certainly the standard bearer but again all of this is subject to change. I do not think you necesarilly (sic) mean precious in terms of monetary value but rather for the subjective joy a particular book brings to you.

[readspider]

I have a cop of 'Yates and Jones - The Roads of Queensland' from 1912 which is a rare book containing maps of an early State in Australia (where I live).

It is invaluable to me as I collect Queensland postal history and this book shows where many 'ghost' town were.

I always wanted a copy as my best stamp collecting mate had one and, eventually, one turned up and I bought it (cost a motza). A few years later my friend died and his book went to auction. I bought it as well and now I have two !

[Helga]

two old books of poetry my grandfather had, from around 1880 or 90. the first page in one is missing so I know nothing about it except it's full of poetry and short stories, the other one is a collection of love poems and they both still smell like my grandfather

[Vota]

My Folio Society Faust.

[Pen Name]

As many have noted their most precious books are not always their most valuable. Some of mine are others aren't.

One of my favourite books is called 'With the Turks in Thrace' by Daily Telegraph journalist J. Ashmead Bartlett and is a contemporary account of the Ottoman fight against Bulgarians in 1913, it is the size shape and way it holds iin tht hand combined with a rollicking good read.

Likewise 'Log Measurement' Published by Benn in 1950, a technical book for timber merchants on how to measure the volume of wood in trees, although in this case it goes into a brief history of how Maths overcame the problem of measuring irregular shapes. Apparently Sam Pepys carried a pair of large calipers about with him for just such a purpose.

My single volume leather bound 'Lord of the rings' printed on India paper and so nice and handy is well treasured.

I also have a nice edition of Hazlett's essays, which is good to dip into on occasion.

Also my single edition volumes (I have 2) of J.R. Green's 'A short History of the English People' is probably one of my all time favourite books, and has been this last 30 years. Still unfinished I have read some part dozens of times over the years.

That is probably my Desert Island book.

I have also just remembered why I stopped coming on this site as I was timed out posting this reply.

[Paulclem]

The bookcase. It is very nice.

[Eiseabhal]

What dyknow I too have a copy of that most English of historians Mr Green. I too used to read bits more than once just for the pleasure of his English and me not even an Englishman. But it must be a decade now since I last opened it. Dark green, well battered, thin-papered. A mighty tome. I'll have to check out where it is on the shelves.